Davtron clock problem and suggestion

[JRBarrett 3,034]

I noted that the upper right toggle switch that should advance the displayed time (hours) by one hour with each press of the switch, appears to be advancing in 2-hour increments.

I know that in the sim, the clock automatically syncs to the local sim time zone. The actual Davtron M811B has no connection to an external time source - it keeps the set time when the aircraft is unpowered using an internal backup battery. In the actual aircraft, the pilot can choose to set the clock to any time zone desired by toggling the hour advance switch. Our Falcon 900EX aircraft have the same model clock, and our SOP is to keep them set to GMT.

Would it be possible to have an option - perhaps in one of the config screens - to have the clock track GMT instead of local sim time? Personally I prefer GMT since sometimes the local time zones in FSX/P3D are not correct, which can screw up the total flight time when crossing multiple time zones.

Jim Barrett

 

 

[Guevorkyan 69]

+1 on this.

If the clock can be locked to UTC it would be awesome. As of now you have to set it and everytime you cross a time zone, the clock goes up 1h or down 1h depending on your direction of flight.

[Flysimware 647]

17 hours ago, JRBarrett said:

I noted that the upper right toggle switch that should advance the displayed time (hours) by one hour with each press of the switch, appears to be advancing in 2-hour increments.

I know that in the sim, the clock automatically syncs to the local sim time zone. The actual Davtron M811B has no connection to an external time source - it keeps the set time when the aircraft is unpowered using an internal backup battery. In the actual aircraft, the pilot can choose to set the clock to any time zone desired by toggling the hour advance switch. Our Falcon 900EX aircraft have the same model clock, and our SOP is to keep them set to GMT.

Would it be possible to have an option - perhaps in one of the config screens - to have the clock track GMT instead of local sim time? Personally I prefer GMT since sometimes the local time zones in FSX/P3D are not correct, which can screw up the total flight time when crossing multiple time zones.

Jim Barrett

 

 

I updated the code so it can only adjust 1 hour at a time. But you will have to click many times to cycle through the hours if you need 1 hour less. But it works much better anyways. So good update as the instruction confirmed this.

Also the flight time reset button off to the side will swap local and GMT time. According to Davtron the time is set to your local time from the factory and you must use the 1hr up to adjust for time zones. This is not a computer.

GMT and local should work the same the only difference is the time difference i think. The user manual has new info on the Davtron so go ahead and download it now.

[JRBarrett 3,034]

3 hours ago, Flysimware said:

I updated the code so it can only adjust 1 hour at a time. But you will have to click many times to cycle through the hours if you need 1 hour less. But it works much better anyways. So good update as the instruction confirmed this.

Also the flight time reset button off to the side will swap local and GMT time. According to Davtron the time is set to your local time from the factory and you must use the 1hr up to adjust for time zones. This is not a computer.

GMT and local should work the same the only difference is the time difference i think. The user manual has new info on the Davtron so go ahead and download it now.

Ah! Didn’t realize the reset switch would swap local and GMT. Thanks for the info.

Yes, the M811B is a pain to reset the time after changing the memory backup battery, which has to be done every 2 years. When the battery is replaced, the time resets to 00:00. Changing the hours is relatively quick, but changing the minutes takes forever. When you hold the minutes adjust switch, the seconds start counting up, but only twice as fast as real time - I.e. the seconds start advancing 2 seconds for each 1 second of real time. In the worst case scenario, if you have to advance the minutes by 59 to sync with real time, you literally have to hold the minutes toggle switch for 30 minutes continuously! 

The newer LCD Davtron chronometers are much easier to use. We have asked Dassault if we could use one of the newer models in the Falcon 900EX, but they would have to create an STC to authorize that, and are unwilling to go to the expense of creating one.

[Flysimware 647]

If the F900 is larger can a F50 just be scaled up? How close is the shape?

[JRBarrett 3,034]

1 hour ago, Flysimware said:

If the F900 is larger can a F50 just be scaled up? How close is the shape?

The 900 is taller, wider and longer than the 50, with TFE731-60 engines, rated at 5000 pounds of thrust each. The fuselage is not strictly a round tube like the 50, but more flat-sided with a concave section under the engines for increased aerodynamic efficiency.

There are more cabin windows, and passenger capacity can be as much as 18, depending on interior configuration. (More typically 14).

The 900 EX flight deck has definite similarities in some areas - yokes are the same, center console is very similar - the aileron, rudder and hstab standby trim switches and airbrake handle are identical to the 50. Throttles look pretty much the same. Single thrust reverser on the number 2 engine like the 50. Fuel system is simpler - there are no dedicated feeder tanks - the two wing and center tanks hold 7000 pounds each for a total capacity of 21,000 pounds. Antiskid switch looks and operates the same as in the 50. Flight controls are similar in configuration and operation, except there are three flap settings instead of two, and no “slats only” position. If you deploy slats, you also get flaps 7.

Performance is similar in terms of speed and altitude, but the 900 is a heavier aircraft with greater payload capacity. The larger engines burn more fuel, but there is 5,500 pounds more fuel capacity, so overall range is about the same.

The cabin is wider and taller.

The big difference though is the avionics. The 900EX has a Honeywell Primus 2000 flight deck, with 5 display tubes, and three Honeywell NZ 2000 FMS, with 3 inertial reference units + 2 GPS.

Engine instruments are displayed on the center tube. The only analog instruments are the standby gyro and standby altimeter and airspeed, and the pressurization indicator, which is the same as the one in the 50.

If you are familiar with the Eaglesoft Citation X, that is a very good flight sim representation of how a Honeywell Primus flight deck looks and operates. Their FMS implementation is very accurate.

The 900 has autothrottles, and the autopilot has full VNAV capability.

The 900 EASy is the latest version of the line, our company has two older EX models, and two newer  900 EASy aircraft. (Externally, and performance wise, the EX and EASy are the same.)

The EASy has a Honeywell Primus Epic flight deck with 4 large LCD flat screen displays similar to the newer Falcon 7X.

The FeelThere Embraer 175/195 is pretty good simulator representation of a Honeywell Primus Epic flight deck. 

[Flysimware 647]

Here is my questions.

What name do i search to see analog panel of the 900? I keep getting glass images.

If i scale up and make changes to the fuselage can i still reuse the gear and wings. The ailerons, and other stabs you said are the same. How about the flaps? If there are some minor changes i can tweak them, But i want to reuse most of my parts. Tweaking some parts to the new shape is easy as long as the gear and flaps use the same animation because that that takes a very long time to model.

=================================

I have 2 other projects i will be making first that should not take too long. The Cessna 414 which i have full access to from my pilot friend. And i want to finish a AWS - 28 glider i started a while back. But this i am looking for someone who has access to gliders and can get involved.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Flysimware

[MartinRex007 390]

Mark, here is a pretty good picture of a analog panel in a 900, looks a lot like the 50? Click on image to enlarge.

Edited December 14, 2018 by MartinRex007

[JRBarrett 3,034]

7 hours ago, Flysimware said:

Here is my questions.

What name do i search to see analog panel of the 900? I keep getting glass images.

If i scale up and make changes to the fuselage can i still reuse the gear and wings. The ailerons, and other stabs you said are the same. How about the flaps? If there are some minor changes i can tweak them, But i want to reuse most of my parts. Tweaking some parts to the new shape is easy as long as the gear and flaps use the same animation because that that takes a very long time to model.

=================================

I have 2 other projects i will be making first that should not take too long. The Cessna 414 which i have full access to from my pilot friend. And i want to finish a AWS - 28 glider i started a while back. But this i am looking for someone who has access to gliders and can get involved.

The wings are longer, but similar to the 50 in basic form. Likewise the flaps and gear. As mentioned, the flaps have a 7 degree position in addition to 20 and 48.

The original Falcon 900 and 900B had Honeywell TFE731-5BR engines (same as the Hawker 800), and analog instruments, but there weren’t that many of them produced. The glass cockpit EX series entered production in 1996, and the 900 EX EASy in 2004.

[Guevorkyan 69]

Oh I would LOVE a -900

[scottb613 1,186]

Hi Folks,

Yeah - while I appreciate all the Falcon love - I like my 50 very much and look forward to many happy hours learning to fly it correctly - but - I might not be so ready to jump on another very similar aircraft... I understand the desire to recycle many of the parts would greatly speed development time...

Just my two cents...

I know we're speaking purely hypotheticals and eons down the road...

We've had a US and French jet - let's spread the love - how about a UK Hawker 1000 - I was always envious of the Carenado crowd but from feedback I chose to abstain on their Hawker model... I like the one below very much...

Hawker 1000 with a mostly analog pit:

NOTE:

On a side note - both Flysimware and RXP make the top of my list for developers... Flysimware doesn't do glass very much and RXP has proven themselves as a true master of glass... Imagine if you will - if Jean-Luc and Mark could team up a bit - Jean-Luc has already made very good glass gauges very similar to the ones posted in both the Hawker 1000 and the Falcon 900 pictures... Maybe Jean-Luc could blow the dust off some old work for a project or two ? While I certainly can't speak for either developer - it might be worth a conversation or two - and it's an idea I certainly enjoy entertaining...

OK - so maybe it's a nickel's worth...

Regards,
Scott   

 

Edited December 14, 2018 by scottb613

[scottb613 1,186]

Hi Folks,

Just realized the Hawker I posted was the shorter model...

This is the 1000 that matches the panel (needs 7 windows)...

Regards,

Scott

Edited December 14, 2018 by scottb613

[JRBarrett 3,034]

9 hours ago, scottb613 said:

Hi Folks,

Yeah - while I appreciate all the Falcon love - I like my 50 very much and look forward to many happy hours learning to fly it correctly - but - I might not be so ready to jump on another very similar aircraft... I understand the desire to recycle many of the parts would greatly speed development time...

Just my two cents...

I know we're speaking purely hypotheticals and eons down the road...

We've had a US and French jet - let's spread the love - how about a UK Hawker 1000 - I was always envious of the Carenado crowd but from feedback I chose to abstain on their Hawker model... I like the one below very much...

Hawker 1000 with a mostly analog pit:

NOTE:

On a side note - both Flysimware and RXP make the top of my list for developers... Flysimware doesn't do glass very much and RXP has proven themselves as a true master of glass... Imagine if you will - if Jean-Luc and Mark could team up a bit - Jean-Luc has already made very good glass gauges very similar to the ones posted in both the Hawker 1000 and the Falcon 900 pictures... Maybe Jean-Luc could blow the dust off some old work for a project or two ? While I certainly can't speak for either developer - it might be worth a conversation or two - and it's an idea I certainly enjoy entertaining...

OK - so maybe it's a nickel's worth...

Regards,
Scott   

 

The Hawker 1000 is a very interesting aircraft. Only 52 were produced. Several years ago, the company I previously worked for owned 4 of them. It’s an aircraft I know very well from the maintenance side.

The engine gauges are analog, but the navigation and performance instruments were glass - the Honeywell SPZ8400 system - which was the forerunner of the Primus 1000/2000. It had dual FMS and dual IRU.

In someways it was simply an extended Hawker 800, but some things were very different - in particular the engines, which were Pratt & Whitney 305s with full FADEC, unlike the TFE731s used on the 800.

Creating something like this would probably be a major undertaking. To do it justice in the sim, it would have to have the FMS and digital PFD and ND, as no Hawker 1000 had analog flight instruments. (Other than the altimeter).

I tried the “C” Hawker 800. The aircraft modeling was beautiful, and flight model was fine, but the systems emulation and (supposed) Proline 21 avionics were so bad that I couldn’t bring myself to fly it more than a few times.

[scottb613 1,186]

Hi Jim,

OK - understood - thanks for the input...

Regards,
Scott